3 ms·

And what data would you use? When it's quite clear that the media and the agencies are distorting the data, or at best have erroneous and uncorrected data, then

And what data would you use? When it's quite clear that the media and the agencies are distorting the data, or at best have erroneous and uncorrected data, then trust is lost. Ultimately, you do have to trust your source of said data, and that's precisely what's been discounted, several times. Maybe the COVID data is correct right now, but how does one really know? Not many of us go out and try to collect it ourselves.

legobmw99 5y ago
There are a lot of claims in the article besides COVID policy effectiveness, for starters. They present the racism of the MAGA movement through a single debunked anecdote, rather than hate crime statistics. Policy brutality is presented not as a reality which has numbers and history but as an event that happened one time to one man, etc. As for COVID data, it would be foolish to claim that the data we have is perfect. After all, we had a seemingly official policy of “if we don’t do tests more, we won’t have more cases” for the first month of the spread in the US. And without a doubt, there are people with stuff to gain by artificially inflating the numbers (incendiary media, etc) and artificially suppressing them (governors, etc). But, I think it’s also difficult to form a coherent claim that the data available is, in aggregate, completely bogus. If you slap an error bar of even 20% on the case numbers, I don’t think my ultimate interpretation of that would not change very much, but YMMV
- flyingfences 5y ago
  Yes, the average, everyday person's perspectives on the goings-on are informed primarily by the big news stories that have been rammed down their throats. That's the point of the article.
- strawhatguy 5y ago
  Well, off subject, but hate crime data isn't exactly the whole picture either, as this article (paywall, sadly) explains: https://reason.com/2021/09/19/do-we-really-need-new-anti-asian-hate-crime-laws/ https://reason.com/2021/09/19/do-we-really-need-new-anti-asi... (in general physical violence down, 'uncomfortable' situations or words may be up past year, yet all down over like 20 years) Back on subject, seems like it's possible though, even if the rest of this article is wrong about COVID, it does mention the fake epidemic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, where the PCR testing was 100% wrong: https://blog.plan99.net/pseudo-epidemics-7603b2da839 https://blog.plan99.net/pseudo-epidemics-7603b2da839 It really doesn't help either that dissenting data is auto-flagged as 'disinformation' now either. And finally 'the data' is just part of the equation. It has justified lockdowns that have a 100% real negative effect on people's lives, whereas for healthy adults COVID has a far less than 1% effect. Plus I'll note that those that most strongly advocate for lockdowns are the least affected by them - media, academics, medical personnel, politicans, tech and other white-collar workers, public school teachers, etc. It really shows a selfishness, and a careless disregard for fellow citizens who might not be as fortunate. Is it any wonder 'the data' is not to be believed?
  - IIsi50MHz 5y ago
    I dissent on the claim that medical personnel are least affected. Is there some subset you're envisioning? Do you somehow mean only particular kinds of affect?
    - strawhatguy 5y ago
      I don't know of any hospitals that were closed due to a lockdown, do you? the pandemic's affected them a lot, yes, I'm just talking about government imposed lockdowns, which have little in the way of data backing them up.
DenisM 5y ago
Chomsky covered this problem comprehensively in "Understanding Power", I recommend giving it a read. The highlights are: 1) it's always been that way 2) collating news for conflicting or foreign sources is the best way to suss out the truth 3) business news is less slanted but obfuscated in business speak. I still recommend the book over my summary :)

legobmw99 5y ago

There are a lot of claims in the article besides COVID policy effectiveness, for starters. They present the racism of the MAGA movement through a single debunked anecdote, rather than hate crime statistics. Policy brutality is presented not as a reality which has numbers and history but as an event that happened one time to one man, etc. As for COVID data, it would be foolish to claim that the data we have is perfect. After all, we had a seemingly official policy of “if we don’t do tests more, we won’t have more cases” for the first month of the spread in the US. And without a doubt, there are people with stuff to gain by artificially inflating the numbers (incendiary media, etc) and artificially suppressing them (governors, etc). But, I think it’s also difficult to form a coherent claim that the data available is, in aggregate, completely bogus. If you slap an error bar of even 20% on the case numbers, I don’t think my ultimate interpretation of that would not change very much, but YMMV

flyingfences 5y ago
Yes, the average, everyday person's perspectives on the goings-on are informed primarily by the big news stories that have been rammed down their throats. That's the point of the article.
strawhatguy 5y ago
Well, off subject, but hate crime data isn't exactly the whole picture either, as this article (paywall, sadly) explains: https://reason.com/2021/09/19/do-we-really-need-new-anti-asian-hate-crime-laws/ https://reason.com/2021/09/19/do-we-really-need-new-anti-asi... (in general physical violence down, 'uncomfortable' situations or words may be up past year, yet all down over like 20 years) Back on subject, seems like it's possible though, even if the rest of this article is wrong about COVID, it does mention the fake epidemic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, where the PCR testing was 100% wrong: https://blog.plan99.net/pseudo-epidemics-7603b2da839 https://blog.plan99.net/pseudo-epidemics-7603b2da839 It really doesn't help either that dissenting data is auto-flagged as 'disinformation' now either. And finally 'the data' is just part of the equation. It has justified lockdowns that have a 100% real negative effect on people's lives, whereas for healthy adults COVID has a far less than 1% effect. Plus I'll note that those that most strongly advocate for lockdowns are the least affected by them - media, academics, medical personnel, politicans, tech and other white-collar workers, public school teachers, etc. It really shows a selfishness, and a careless disregard for fellow citizens who might not be as fortunate. Is it any wonder 'the data' is not to be believed?
- IIsi50MHz 5y ago
  I dissent on the claim that medical personnel are least affected. Is there some subset you're envisioning? Do you somehow mean only particular kinds of affect?
  - strawhatguy 5y ago
    I don't know of any hospitals that were closed due to a lockdown, do you? the pandemic's affected them a lot, yes, I'm just talking about government imposed lockdowns, which have little in the way of data backing them up.

DenisM 5y ago

Chomsky covered this problem comprehensively in "Understanding Power", I recommend giving it a read. The highlights are: 1) it's always been that way 2) collating news for conflicting or foreign sources is the best way to suss out the truth 3) business news is less slanted but obfuscated in business speak. I still recommend the book over my summary :)